Month: July 2020

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1A) and Section 16(1)(a)(ii) – Adulterated Haldi Powder HELD the report of the public analyst does not mention that the sample was either “insect infested” or was “unfit for human consumption”, in the absence of such an opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish the requirements of Section 2 (1a)(f) of the Act

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2255 OF 2010 PREM CHAND …APPELLANT Versus STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT JUDGMENT N. V. RAMANA, J. 1.…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 194C – Tax Deduction at Source – Applicability of Section 194C – Question of TDS under Section 194C(2) would have arisen only if the payment was made to a “sub-contractor” and that too, in pursuance of a contract for the purpose of “carrying whole or any part of work undertaken by the contractor” Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT COMPANY — Appellant Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters

Service Law – Appointment – Post of Medical Officer (Homeo) – 1% reservation was provided to the Hindu Nadar Community – Circular of the Commission could not adversely affect the claim of the appellants – Commission was bound to fill up the shortfall in the vacancies reserved for the Hindu Nadar Community.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DR. ASWATHY R.S. KARTHIKA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DR. ARCHANA M. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta…

Service Matters

Army Act, 1950 – Section 71 and 71(h) – General Court Martial – Cashiering from service – Pensionary benefits – If the penalty imposed by the Court Martial of cashiering from service is upheld, forfeiture of all the pensionary benefits of the Appellant is not automatic – In the absence of an order passed under Section 71 (h), the pension of the Appellant cannot be forfeited

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. LT. COL. S. S. BEDI — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta…

IPC, 1860 – Sections 366A and 506 – CrPC , 1973 – S. 313 – Illicit intercourse HELD Important links of the story, including what happened in the crucial five minutes when the girl was locked inside the room or how the male tenant reacted, are missing – Similarly, other links of the story are grossly inconsistent – once a plausible version put forth in defence U/Section 313 CrPC stage, it is for the prosecution to negate such defense plea – Appeal allowed. DOD 28/7/2020

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PARMINDER KAUR @ P.P. KAUR @ SONI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant and…

You missed

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 236 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 193 and 200 – The appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India against the Ex-Directors of M/s. SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The primary issue is whether the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and that offences under the Code should be tried by the Special Court – The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code – The Court reasoned that the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a ‘legislation by reference’, meaning subsequent amendments to the Companies Act do not affect the Code – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine that the case is one of ‘legislation by incorporation’ – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. The judicial opinion emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the distinction between ‘legislation by incorporation’ and ‘legislation by reference’ in determining jurisdiction.